Sure, let them decide, this is probably how Bush did it. (2 Viewers)

[Slagathor]

++ [ originally posted by Layce Erayce ] ++
You surely arent comparing the US' long-term economic development, literally from the ground up to Europe's recent strategy of taking advantage of the WTO's court handouts are you? I hope not!

Yes I very well am because history matters very little in the field of economic development.

The whole European system- society and government is rooted in a kind of mentality which values tradition, rigid structure and form very highly (since before middle ages), which by its nature has proven relatively unwieldy and unfriendly to the concept of free enterprise.

That is nonsense. The European systems are in no way connected to the systems that were in place even DURING the middle ages, let alone before it. The Europe of today finds it roots in the 1600s when the Dutch introduced a new form of capitalism that the Americans quickly picked up on. The Dutch VOC was the first multinational in the world and the Dutch economy was (and still is) the most open economy in the West.

In later centuries, the British and Spaniards caused the downfall of the Dutch Empire but they carried on with the Dutch economic system; changing it slightly over the years to create a more social capitalist system that is still in place in modern Europe.

Americans are the "rejects" of the European institution, the underclass, the kind who were not catered to by the system. This explains the US mentality that led to the spurning and outright rejection of rigid order, and extensive authority which prevails even today. This "every man for himself", restriction free philosophy, while unfavorable to other developments is quite favorable to economic development, fueled by greed.

The difference between Europe and America is that the Americans still use a system closely related to that which the Dutch used to use 4 centuries ago and the Europeans have constantly adapted this sytem throughout this space of time. That doesn't mean either party is wrong; because the European system would never work in America and vice versa. But it would be wrong to say that the more open American system still holds a global dominance because that has proven to be untrue as the American economy is currently struggling heavily and the European system (though also under fire) is performing slightly better at this moment.

That doesn't mean the American system won't recover and the European system will always continue to do relatively well; but for the moment it means the Americans have been forced to let go of their dominance to a fairly large extent; even though not entirely.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Layce Erayce]

++ [ originally posted by Erik ] ++
Yes I very well am because history matters very little in the field of economic development.

As much as I forsee the recession of America's economic influence in the coming years, I doubt you would deny that till now, Europe has been playing catch-up with the US economically. And using the WTO as a crutch to compensate for government weaknesses in fueling free enterprise wont help usher in the new era of Europe's economic dominance either.

++ [ originally posted by Erik ] ++
That is nonsense. The European systems are in no way connected to the systems that were in place even DURING the middle ages, let alone before it. The Europe of today finds it roots in the 1600s when the Dutch introduced a new form of capitalism that the Americans quickly picked up on. The Dutch VOC was the first multinational in the world and the Dutch economy was (and still is) the most open economy in the West.

In later centuries, the British and Spaniards caused the downfall of the Dutch Empire but they carried on with the Dutch economic system; changing it slightly over the years to create a more social capitalist system that is still in place in modern Europe.

The difference between Europe and America is that the Americans still use a system closely related to that which the Dutch used to use 4 centuries ago and the Europeans have constantly adapted this sytem throughout this space of time.

Your looking at it from a purely historical point of view while mine is more psychosocial. How else will you explain why Europe has always leaned toward a more socialist, big government system while America by and large prefers small government with fewer government regulations and generally laissez faire policies? What is the root of this divergence?

++ [ originally posted by Erik ] ++
In later centuries, the British and Spaniards caused the downfall of the Dutch Empire but they carried on with the Dutch economic system; changing it slightly over the years to create a more social capitalist system that is still in place in modern Europe.

Glad to see you took notes from your classes

++ [ originally posted by Erik ] ++
The difference between Europe and America is that the Americans still use a system closely related to that which the Dutch used to use 4 centuries ago and the Europeans have constantly adapted this sytem throughout this space of time. That doesn't mean either party is wrong; because the European system would never work in America and vice versa. But it would be wrong to say that the more open American system still holds a global dominance because that has proven to be untrue as the American economy is currently struggling heavily and the European system (though also under fire) is performing slightly better at this moment.

That doesn't mean the American system won't recover and the European system will always continue to do relatively well; but for the moment it means the Americans have been forced to let go of their dominance to a fairly large extent; even though not entirely.

Which explains why Americans are percieved, often falsely, as ignorant, when infact the only difference between Americans and their European, Asian and African counterparts is their value systems, which less of an emphasis on general knowledge as a way to find fulfillment and more of an emphasis on doing something as a way to find fulfillment.

You hit the nail on the head there, EP. Well done

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Layce is an anthropologist and erik is a macro-economist...one thing is for sure Americans are better entrepreneurs than europeans..and european govts are more economically tuned than their transatlantic cousins

 

[mikhail]

++ [ originally posted by Layce Erayce ] ++
Your looking at it from a purely historical point of view while mine is more psychosocial. How else will you explain why Europe has always leaned toward a more socialist, big government system while America by and large prefers small government with fewer government regulations and generally laissez faire policies? What is the root of this divergence?

I don't think you can look at Europe over the past four hundred years and say there's a pattern beyond everyone taking turns to invade everyone else. The reason we have a vaguely socialist grouping now is probably a reaction to WW2. The fascists were beaten and their theories of government weren't exactly in vogue right then, associated as they were with some of their other, more odeous practices. The EU consists of countries who emerged from the war in tatters. Socialism is fairly sensible in that situation.

Besides, it's hard to see the EU going for fewer regulations - they have laws demanding that bananas be straight FFS!

 

[Slagathor]

++ [ originally posted by Layce Erayce ] ++
As much as I forsee the recession of America's economic influence in the coming years, I doubt you would deny that till now, Europe has been playing catch-up with the US economically. And using the WTO as a crutch to compensate for government weaknesses in fueling free enterprise wont help usher in the new era of Europe's economic dominance either.

The WTO is not used to compensate for government weaknesses, mate. The European Union today is only unified on an economic level; hence economic international organisations are pretty much the only means to ventilate European power and influence.

And I would agree that during the whole Cold War, Europe has been playing catch up; but I think the 1990s (with their unparalleled economic prosperity) were a solid jumpboard for Europe to make one final streak and catch up. A process that was completed with the introduction of the Euro in 1999. From that point, America has been forced to give up a lot of its economic influence. Mind you I use the words 'economic influence' because obviously when it comes to foreign affairs and military might; America knows no equal in the world.

Your looking at it from a purely historical point of view while mine is more psychosocial. How else will you explain why Europe has always leaned toward a more socialist, big government system while America by and large prefers small government with fewer government regulations and generally laissez faire policies? What is the root of this divergence?

I believe that psychology has very little to do with it. It's all about current cirucmstances and situations. I'm not denying there is probably some role in all this for psychological aspects, but I don't believe they are the main reason.

Glad to see you took notes from your classes

I study languages and cultures; how many classes do you think I've had on the subject of economy?

Which explains why Americans are percieved, often falsely, as ignorant, when infact the only difference between Americans and their European, Asian and African counterparts is their value systems, which less of an emphasis on general knowledge as a way to find fulfillment and more of an emphasis on doing something as a way to find fulfillment.

You hit the nail on the head there, EP. Well done

Well it's very easy to join the masses, lead by the mass media in either region and just shout along with the group. The challenge lies in going in the opposite direction; researching and learning by yourself and drawing your own conclusions. And I'm always in for a challenge.

As are you, it seems.

 

[Geof]

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++

I don't think you can look at Europe over the past four hundred years and say there's a pattern beyond everyone taking turns to invade everyone else. The reason we have a vaguely socialist grouping now is probably a reaction to WW2. The fascists were beaten and their theories of government weren't exactly in vogue right then, associated as they were with some of their other, more odeous practices. The EU consists of countries who emerged from the war in tatters. Socialism is fairly sensible in that situation.

Socialism existed before WWII in Europe. France had communists in their government in the 1930's.

Socialism, IMO, took advantage of the late reaction of the church during the industrial revolution. The working conditions in the mines and first factories were awful, working 14 hours a day for some pennies,...
With the church not reacting to this situation (Rerum Novarum was only published in 1893), the working class organized itself, and socialist parties were created throughout Europe.
When the working class obtained the right to vote, the socialists naturally took a proeminent role in Europe's politics.

And day by day they obtained better working conditions, the right to strike, paid holidays, social security, a minimum salary, free health care,...

Why didn't the US have the same evolution? I guess the mentality is different. Is the "American dream" still living in the heart of the poorer? Creating the illusion of a better life that is to come? Makes me think of Karl Marx about Catholicism: Opium for the people...

 

[mikhail]

++ [ originally posted by Geof ] ++
Socialism existed before WWII in Europe.

Of course. I was speculating on why it's predominant now.

Socialism, IMO, took advantage of the late reaction of the church during the industrial revolution. The working conditions
... the working class organized itself, and socialist parties were created throughout Europe.
When the working class obtained the right to vote, the socialists naturally took a proeminent role in Europe's politics.

Totally agree. Hadn't considered the church's role before though.

Why didn't the US have the same evolution? I guess the mentality is different. Is the "American dream" still living in the heart of the poorer? Creating the illusion of a better life that is to come? Makes me think of Karl Marx about Catholicism: Opium for the people...

Interesting idea. Can't say I know the US well enough to comment though.

 

[Geof]

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
Totally agree. Hadn't considered the church's role before though.

Until circa 1860, the working class was doing whatever the priest would tell them to do, and were relying on the help of the Church. But when the Church failed to react, they obviously felt abandoned and were seduced by Socialist theories... I guess

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
Interesting idea. Can't say I know the US well enough to comment though.

Me neither, I'm just speculating. But it's weird how the American working class doesn't come together with big actions, like massive strikes,...

Last Friday, for example, there was a national strike, organized by the socialist syndicate, FGTB. Everything was closed. No newspapers, no public transport, no mail, no supermarkets, factories were mostly closed...
Something like that is impossible in the US as far as I know.
There was a funny interview of the ex-manager of the Ford factory in Genk (Belgium). He said that his american bosses couldn't imagine that the workers were on strike, and were actually blocking the passage, so that he couldn't even get into his office!

 

[mikhail]

There's an interesting debate on another forum about the role of trade unions. Mostly vitriole, but some interesting insights.

 

[Layce Erayce]

++ [ originally posted by Erik ] ++


The WTO is not used to compensate for government weaknesses, mate. The European Union today is only unified on an economic level; hence economic international organisations are pretty much the only means to ventilate European power and influence.

And I would agree that during the whole Cold War, Europe has been playing catch up; but I think the 1990s (with their unparalleled economic prosperity) were a solid jumpboard for Europe to make one final streak and catch up. A process that was completed with the introduction of the Euro in 1999. From that point, America has been forced to give up a lot of its economic influence. Mind you I use the words 'economic influence' because obviously when it comes to foreign affairs and military might; America knows no equal in the world.

Whatever, man. You cant deny that upto this point Americans have been better at making big money, without depending on courts, legal loopholes, and government assistance or involvement. Just smarts and hard work. You seen the Forbes richest people list?

++ [ originally posted by Erik ] ++
Well it's very easy to join the masses, lead by the mass media in either region and just shout along with the group. The challenge lies in going in the opposite direction; researching and learning by yourself and drawing your own conclusions. And I'm always in for a challenge.

As are you, it seems.

Cheers.

 

[Layce Erayce]

++ [ originally posted by Altair ] ++
Layce is an anthropologist and erik is a macro-economist...one thing is for sure Americans are better entrepreneurs than europeans..and european govts are more economically tuned than their transatlantic cousins

I aint no anthropologist. Im just an argumentative idiot. :cheesy:

 

[Juve_Kosova]

++ [ originally posted by baggio ] ++
The best universities maybe from the US. The best students however, certainly are not.

 

[Seven]

Timeo Danaos et dona ferrentes.